THE INSURED'S CONTRACT TELLS WHETHER THE INSURED'S "WORK" WAS "COMPLETED."

A standard "completed work exclusion" in a liability insurance policy did not apply to a damage claim based on an insured railroad maintenance company spraying herbicide two times per year and making spot checks of a railroad crossing.  The appellate panel wrote that, purely and simply, the insured's work under its contract in this case was not completed:

By its plain language, the Crossing Contract describes—as the District Court found—an ongoing and continuous maintenance and monitoring obligation, rather than a contract for a series of limited and discrete tasks, such as defoliation of vegetation. Liberty acknowledges that this characterization of the Crossing Contract is correct.

Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp. v. Norfolk S. Ry., 684 F. App'x 788 (11th Cir. 2017) (case involved Georgia substantive law).

Please Read The Disclaimer.  ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.